That article proves conclusively that NOTHING I have written on this topic for two years is inaccurate. It's called an "inference", genius!

It states very plainly in that article that the Bynum injury was the reason the lakers looked to MEM to trade for Gasol......they came in under the radar, and after Bynum was injured.
That has been my argument, and this article, as well as :
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/lee_jenkins/02/22/kobe.bryant.pau.gasol/index.html

prove without a doubt that the lakers would not have Gasol if Bynum wasn't injured!

On the contrary, the Lakers won 5 titles in the 80s and the Celts, Pistons, and Sixers also won 5 from 1980 to 1989.

The Pistons, were led by Isiah Thomas, the Sixers, Dr. J, and the Celtics, Larry Bird. All 3 teams teams were championship teams in the 80s.

The Lakers were the only championship team in the west back in the 80s.

The Rockets came close but every time the Rockets made it to the Finals, the Celts would beat the crap out of them.

And the Pistons' and 76ers' titles belong to the Celtics?

Tell you what. The Lakers, Spurs and Mavs won 10 titles since 2000 and the Celtics won 1.

The Lakers didn't need the Rockets to beat the Celtics. They could do it themselves.

Again, whether the Laker or Celtics are the #1 franchise in the NBA, that's not the issue. I'm only claiming that the Celts are the winningest team in the NBA with 17 championships.

Oh, that's it? I am only claiming the Celtics missed 16 playoffs, had a 21-year drought, a 9-peat and won 1 title in 26 years, the longest such ineptitude among the Lakers and Celtics franchise. Wait, I am not making a claim. I am stating the facts.

BTW, the winningest team == Lakers, the winningest playoff team == Lakers, the team that won the most playoff series == Lakers.

So the winningest team is not necessarily the one "with 17 championships".

In response to Fiercest34's comment:
[/QUOTE]
In statistics, you're not allowed to only include data that's to your own benefit. Why not include the all-time series so that we will know what a crappy team the Lakers are?

[/QUOTE]

Simple, because you set the context in the 80s, as in

"The Lakers faced Philly, Boston, and Detroit in the Finals,
in the 80s"

Your qualification of the argument, not mine.

If you want to move the goalpost, just ask politely. I can easily give you another argument for all-time series...

Why are you still arguing about something that happened more then 4 years ago and has nothing to do with the Celtics?

Let it go man, let it go.

I actually would be interested in your opinion on this, as a lakers fan.
I maintain the lakers had TWO centers named Brown and Bynum. Bynum got hurt and they didn't like Brown..........THEN they looked into trading with MEM for Gasol. Since they didn't approach MEM until after Bynum got hurt.............I said the trade would not have happened. I also said they brought Gasol in to play Center for the rest of the year (or until Bynum came back). I cited five sources, called 710 ESPN LA, and basically have had the same stance for two years now................if you can give an intelligent answer, please do so. If not, don't bother!

That article proves conclusively that NOTHING I have written on this topic for two years is inaccurate. It's called an "inference", genius!

It states very plainly in that article that the Bynum injury was the reason the lakers looked to MEM to trade for Gasol......they came in under the radar, and after Bynum was injured. That has been my argument, and this article, as well as : http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/lee_jenkins/02/22/kobe.bryant.pau.gasol/index.html

prove without a doubt that the lakers would not have Gasol if Bynum wasn't injured!

Wow, you are really desperate. INFERENCE?

You are having delusion. Which statement give you that inference? point it out, and let me teach a kiddy how to infer. For someone who uses A=>B to infer !A=>!B, you think you can win any argument with your kindergarten "inference"?

And the SI article, another "inference" of yours?

The simple fact that you dare not quote any statement from those two posts is loud and clear: you have no such evidence except you think I'll accept your irrelevant facts as evidence because you THINK there's an inference. Go ahead, tell us how these two articles infer the "no bynum injury => no gasol trade" conjecture.

On the contrary, it stated:

"Though general manager Mitch Kupchak said the trade was precipitated by an injury in early 2008 to center Andrew Bynum, Bryant believed his outburst compelled the Lakers to act."

"Mitch Kupchak said the trade was precipitated by an injury in early 2008 to center Andrew Bynum" is nothing new, A=>B, not any evidence to support !A=>!B.

"Bryant believed his outburst compelled the Lakers to act" is even evidence to REFUTE your claim. That Bryant's outburst COMPELLED THE LAKERS TO ACT (go for the trade). In other words, the whole statement INFER that Bynum's injury was NOT the cause of the trade, Bryant's outburst was.

You are digging up evidence to help my argument, by casting doubt on your "Bynum injury => Gasol trade". Now you may not even have the A=>B, let alone !A=>!B. Bryant's outburst is an inference of

I actually would be interested in your opinion on this, as a lakers fan.
I maintain the lakers had TWO centers named Brown and Bynum. Bynum got hurt and they didn't like Brown..........THEN they looked into trading with MEM for Gasol. Since they didn't approach MEM until after Bynum got hurt.............I said the trade would not have happened. I also said they brought Gasol in to play Center for the rest of the year (or until Bynum came back). I cited five sources, called 710 ESPN LA, and basically have had the same stance for two years now................if you can give an intelligent answer, please do so. If not, don't bother!

Umm... better beg for help, since your five sources offered you no support of "Gasol trade wouldn't have happened had Bynum not hurt".

At least in the two sources you show today:

1) Chicago are also interested in Gasol, offered a better package, but the Lakers got Gasol with worse talents, but EXPIRING CONTRACTS. That's exactly what Memphis was looking for.

And this fact infer that "no bynum injury, no gasol trade"? and the basis of your inference is?

2) Kupchak claimed that the Bynum injury caused the Gasol trade, but that doesn't mean "no bynum injury, no gasol trade", however, Bryant even disagreed with that. He thought the Gasol trade was due to his outburst, not bynum's injury.

3) your call to ESPN LA? we never heard that, no recording was posted here. Based on the dishonesty you showed over these past 2-3 years, we should believe you?

And pray tell, just for the sake of argument, post your other 3 links (you said you posted 5 total). If you want a genuine argument, why not post those 3 links for me to examine?

If you really want the last word, if you are really that immature, go ahead and have the last word.
Doesn't mean I agree, or doesn't mean I'm wrong. Just tired of arguing over something that happened 4 years ago. Bynum isn't even on the team anymore.

If you really want the last word, if you are really that immature, go ahead and have the last word. Doesn't mean I agree, or doesn't mean I'm wrong. Just tired of arguing over something that happened 4 years ago. Bynum isn't even on the team anymore.

Again, not conceding anything - just not arguing anymore.

Fierce - he's all yours!!

MY last word!

Your last words had been said 29003221 times. Everytime when there is some fine points you can't contend, it's "My last word", "I am done with this", "game set match".

Two days later, you are back again.

You have said the same thing several times in the past 2 days.

Whenever the logic is brought up, you can't contend. THAT MEANS YOU ARE WRONG, whether you are tired or not. Fatigue doesn't make your argument from wrong to right.

Look back at your post at 1:37 PM EDT:

"It states very plainly in that article that the Bynum injury was the reason the lakers looked to MEM to trade for Gasol.........

prove without a doubt that the lakers would not have Gasol if Bynum wasn't injured!"

You are simply saying, AS A FACT, that A=>B prove without a doubt that !A=>!B.

Bravo!!!

Now you even have the nerve to say "doesn't mean I am wrong". Curious, what level of education have you had? Logic must be foreign language to you...

this comment has been reported as stalking and abusive language toward another poster. You may have your last word, leave me alone now.......

If you really want the last word, if you are really that immature, go ahead and have the last word. Doesn't mean I agree, or doesn't mean I'm wrong. Just tired of arguing over something that happened 4 years ago. Bynum isn't even on the team anymore.

Again, not conceding anything - just not arguing anymore.

Fierce - he's all yours!!

MY last word!

You have said the same thing several times in the past 2 days.

Look back at your post at 1:37 PM EDT:

"It states very plainly in that article that the Bynum injury was the reason the lakers looked to MEM to trade for Gasol.........

prove without a doubt that the lakers would not have Gasol if Bynum wasn't injured!"

You are simply saying, AS A FACT, that A=>B prove without a doubt that !A=>!B.

My opinion is that the Lakers would not have looked to trade for Gasol if Bynum didn't get hurt. I would guess that I am more then 90% correct on this.

Thank you- my respect for you just went from 0 to 60 in about 2 seconds.....:)

See, glad that you get opinion and guess

"
My opinion is that .... I would
guess ..."

to support your proof.

Dear GlasgowRanger, majicmvp, KingShaq -
TommyRules is a lakers fan
TommyRules HATES MY GUTS!!
TommyRules and I have gone back and forth worse than you and I on a bunch of topics over the last two years.
He is a lakers fan, we all know it, despite what he says. If he just admitted that, he would be treated a lot better on here, but that is his issue........
I would say, sir, that having a lakers fan who HATES MY GUTS to agree with me on this topic, in addition to the numerous Celtics fans on here, and numerous lakers fans I have spoken with here in LA, is THE most damning piece of evidence I can throw at you.
It is clear you only wish to argue, not listen to anyone else's viewpoint. I wish you good luck, good day and good bye - please do not respond to me any longer, or I shall inform the moderators. I AM NOT ARGUING WITH YOU ANYMORE.............and as soon as the ignore feature returns, I shall be more than happy to make you #1!!!

Dear GlasgowRanger, majicmvp, KingShaq -
TommyRules is a lakers fan
TommyRules HATES MY GUTS!!
TommyRules and I have gone back and forth worse than you and I on a bunch of topics over the last two years.
He is a lakers fan, we all know it, despite what he says. If he just admitted that, he would be treated a lot better on here, but that is his issue........
I would say, sir, that having a lakers fan who HATES MY GUTS to agree with me on this topic, in addition to the numerous Celtics fans on here, and numerous lakers fans I have spoken with here in LA, is THE most damning piece of evidence I can throw at you.
It is clear you only wish to argue, not listen to anyone else's viewpoint. I wish you good luck, good day and good bye - please do not respond to me any longer, or I shall inform the moderators. I AM NOT ARGUING WITH YOU ANYMORE.............and as soon as the ignore feature returns, I shall be more than happy to make you #1!!![/QUOTE]

You said you had the last word, and it's not even an hour ago. I thought you could bear at least 2 days.

I can't care less whether he hates you or not. But I have no problem with him.

His statement, "my opinion.... I guess...."

If you relegate your stand to an opinion, a guess, I'll have no problem with you. Are you willing to concede that your claim as merely an opinion? a conjecture? not a proof?

Inquiry mind wants to know.

Now, you claim you throw "damning evidence at me", without providing it (except opinions) Now you threaten me not to respond to your threat or you'll report to the mods?

Tommy, that was well said......I think we all need to put the anymosity aside and remember that we are simply guys & gals trying to make our points....it is fine to "agree to disagree"...

if I have offended anyone I apologize......that is not my intent....the rules and limits seem to have been set by the overall behavior this board has taken on the last few years.....let's remember that this is just a sports issue.....thank God this isn't a political or, worse yet, a religious forum....

there is a lot of sarcasm, criticism, and good natured humor here.....let's lighten up a little and enjoy it...as I said, I am even friends with a some folks on this board as well as others via facebook....I have even met several in person....let's try to take the high road....myself included..

And saying that 17 is not necessarily the winningest is just dumb because 17 is greater than 16.

The LA Lakers don't even have 16 championships. 5 of the 16 came from Minneapolis. Obviously you have not been to Staples Center. When you look up, at the rafters of Staples, you'll only see 12 banners hanging.

Somebody stole the other 4 banners?

Ummmm.. we are arguing about franchises. Now you have to resort to NBA superstars? have to move the goalpost again?

Every franchise's dream is to avoid a 2-decade drought or miss the playoffs for 6 consecutive years.

And "dumb" is not a fact, it's an adjective you use, i.e. opinion. If you have no fact but opinion, I don't worry about it. It's nothing more than saying, "you are dumb", "no, you are dumber", "you are dumber", "you are the dumbest"....

And now you have to resort to LA Lakers? Tell me, I am arguing for the Lakers, why would LA matter?

And you still haven't cite the rule that # championships == # banners hung. Oh, are you going to tell me the # championship banners hung at Chesapeake Arena (by the Thunder) and at Power Balance Arena (by the Kings)? ARe you telling me the Thunder franchise (formerly the Sonics) and the Kings franchise (the formerly Royals) have never won a championship?